Here I am going to list some sentences which are really simple but deffer from each other in a way.
1.He is the Iraqi ambassador to India.
2.He is the Iraqi ambassador in India.
3.He is the Iraqi ambassador for India.
4.He is the Iraqi ambassador of India.
Actually,the original meaning trys to discribe the Iraqi ambassador set for India,working in India.
So what do you think is the accurate way of presenting that meaning amongst the four sentences above?
And how does each of the four sentences differ from each other?I mean even the slight differences .
Hope you help with this.
Thank you.
2006-11-20 19:01:37 · 4 answers · asked by Gone Car 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
Gone Car - This is a question relating to the correct usage of prepositions in English which we have discussed before. If you recall we touched upon the point that it is all a matter of convention, what is accepted as correct at a given point in time by the majority of people speaking the language in question, here English.
With that in mind I would say that sentence 4 here could never be used in the manner you suggest. It might be used to describe the ambassador FROM India TO Iraq but not the ambassador FROM Iraq TO India. The other three sentences could each be used to describe the ambassador FROM Iraq TO India, but the preferred method would be sentence 1. You might hear sentence 3 used and it would have the same meaning but is a litttle confusing. Sentence 2 seems to suggest that the ambassador is currently in India which adds a slight nuance of meaning to the other two forms. You might hear it used but I still say sentence 1 is the best in the context you are suggesting here. Hope this helps.
2006-11-22 08:10:04 · answer #1 · answered by Seeker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, all four sentences say that he is the Iraqi ambassador set for India, but the only one that explicitly says he is working in India is #2, right?
2006-11-21 03:05:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. This is correct.
2. Not correct, but he could conceivably be an Iraqi ambassador to anywhere who happens to be in India at the moment.
3. Not correct, but it sounds as though one is referring to the Indian ambassador to Iraq.
4. Not correct. It sounds as though although he is the Iraqi ambassador he comes from India originally (against the rules!)
He is the Iraqi ambassador to India.
As Iraqi ambassador, he is based in India.
He is the Iraqi ambassador and his duties require him to represent his country's interests for the promotion of understanding in India.
He has been appointed ambassador for Iraq and has been posted to India.
I'm glad it wasn't my homework!
2006-11-21 07:00:01 · answer #3 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on where the Ambassador is at the time - is he actually in India? Is he in NY and someone is talking about him?
For and of are out
2006-11-21 03:06:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋